Report slams project costs

A new financial report into the proposed Severn Barrage has denounced it as “unjustifiable”.

Frontier Economics, the firm commissioned by ten UK environmental groups to study the project’s finances, concluded it would be wrong to spend £15 million of taxpayers’ money when cheaper alternatives were available.

The report's author, Matthew Bell, said: "It is hard to think of reasons for the public sector to build or operate a barrage which would not be equally applicable to many other projects and assets that sit in the private sector."

The report also concluded that there was no case for government involvement in the project’s ownership or operation, while wind and biomass technologies would be cheaper.

"Not only is the private sector more than able to finance a scheme of this scale but, even using the most conservative estimates of costs, the barrage is one of the most expensive options for clean energy generation there is," said Bell.

However, the Sustainable Development Commission believes a Severn barrage must be given very serious consideration and is undeterred by the report.

Director of the SDC, Andrew Lee, said: “Yes, such a scheme would have a huge impact on the Severn, yes, there are difficult issues about financing, and how the risks and benefits would be distributed between the private sector and the public.

“But the Severn represents over 90% of our tidal range energy, so a barrage may still be the right thing to do. That is why the government is correct to make a thorough appraisal of options,” Lee said.

The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that commissioned the analysis included the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the National Trust and WWF-UK.

 

Councillor Helen Harrison calls on the government to embrace the project and research into it.